JUDGMENT

: 30^th January, 2024 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : The instant appeal has arisen against an order dated 22ndAugust, 2022 passed by Learned DRT, Siliguri in I.A. 30 of 2021 inTOA No. 596 of 2017 arising out of O.A. 219 of 2016 (Punjab National Bank -vs- M/s. Azmer Business Private Limited & Another) therebyrejecting I.A. 30 of 2021 filed by the Applicant herein. 2. As per the pleadings of the parties, O.A. 219 of 2016, (TOA 516 of 2017) under Section 19 of the Recovery of Debts And Bankruptcy Act, 1993 was filed by the Respondent Bank against the Appellant forissuance of certificate for Rs.4,25,08,921.35 alongwith pendent lite and future interest. It is stated in the Original Application that 2 Appeal No. 110 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata Director of Defendant No. 1 executed two Demand Promissory Notesdated 14.7.2010 and 3.7.2013. Written Statement was filed by the Defendant/Respondent wherein in paragraph 21 of the writtenstatement execution of the Demand Promissory Notes dated 14.7.2010and 3.7.2013 were challenged. It was specifically stated that DemandPromissory Note dated 3.7.2013 is a forged document. Pending O.A.,I.A. 30 of 2021 was filed by the Appellants with a prayer to grant leave to take inspection of the original documents and further to obtain the expert opinion regarding the genuineness of the signatures on the documents allegedly signed by the Appellants. It is stated that anSARFAESI Application, being S.A. 101 of 2011, was pending before the DRT-II, Kolkata wherein the fact of execution of the documents was alleged by the Bank. However, SARFAESI Application was allowed on4.6.2013. Application was opposed by the Respondent Bank with the assertion that the two separate Memorandum of deposit of title deedswere executed by the Appellants on 18.7.2005 as equitable mortgage was created in favour of the Bank. It is stated that signatures of the Appellants were not denied at any point of time. Any finding by DRT- II, Kolkata, regarding creation of equitable mortgage in favour of the Bank, does not mean that property was not mortgaged with the Respondent Bank.

3. Learned DRT, after considering the submissions made by the Learned Counsel for the parties, relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Indian Bank -vs- M/s. Blue Jaggers Estates Limited, arising out of SLP(C) No. 4982 of 2010 decided on 9.8.2010 recorded a finding that since O.A. is pending for the last six years and in the written statement it was accepted that Cash Credit Loan was granted by the Respondent Bank to M/s. Azmer EnterpriseI.A. was dismissed. 4. I have heard the Learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record.

3 Appeal No. 110 of 2022-DRAT-Kolkata 5. Learned Counsel for Appellant would submit that Learned DRT has erred in passing the impugned order specifically challenging the same regarding signatures on the Demand Promissory Notes but no finding is recorded on this issue. It is further submitted that in paragraph 21 of the written statement there was denial aboutexecution of the document dated 3.7.2013. It is stated that it is a forged document. It is further submitted that the document dated3.7.2013 does not bear the signatures of the Appellant. These signatures were forged with a purpose to bring the claim of the Respondent within the period of limitation.

6. Per contra, Learned Counsel for Respondent submits that sanction of loan to the Appellant is not under challenge. There was no denial right from the stage of filing of the documents till accepting about the genuineness of the signatures. Evidence was served on19.12.2017 while the I.A. was filed in the year 2022. There is no challenge to the execution of the Demand Promissory Notes by the Appellant.

7. Main question in this appeal is regarding inspection of the original documents filed by the Bank as well as obtaining an expert opinion from the CID, West Bengal regarding execution of Annexure Eto J and N-1.